Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:03:29 +0100 From: Philipp Wuensche <cryx-freebsd@h3q.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: tuning for high connection rates Message-ID: <4756BDC1.2070802@h3q.com> In-Reply-To: <d763ac660712041833m259e35f4kaf1d8aedade22760@mail.gmail.com> References: <4755ED57.6030603@h3q.com> <20071204195131.56cb1307.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <4755FAD8.5030805@h3q.com> <d763ac660712041833m259e35f4kaf1d8aedade22760@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 05/12/2007, Philipp Wuensche <cryx-freebsd@h3q.com> wrote: > >> As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, polling helps against >> high interrupt rates but for that intel gigabit cards have interrupt >> moderation. We don't have a problem with interrupts (20% CPU) at the >> moment but with system (100% CPU) as you can see in the system >> monitoring graphs. Interrupts sometimes peak at, but usually are under, >> the 2k interrupts/sec limit. > > Begin by reading up on the hardware profiling support (hwpmc, pmc, > etc) and see if you can get some system and process-specific profiling > information. Oh interesting stuff, I definitely have to take a look into that. Nice. > Kernel/System profiling will probably show you an interesting thing or > two. One thing I noticed was high in my high-TCP-transaction tests > (but not on hardware anywhere near as nice as yours!) was crypto calls > for, IIRC, syncookies. We tried with syncookies enabled and disabled, no change at all. But as you already said, crypto calls on this kind of hardware are not that expensive ;-) greetings, cryx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4756BDC1.2070802>